Not unless the line died out all but them.But I wish they would have female rulers in the middle east why not? Muslims say men and women are equal why is being female means you can carry your father's name if your the oldest child???? Or the only child???

Purely hypothetical: if two members of two different royal families marry, will one of them always lose their place in succession to the throne?
Example: say, Isabella, daughter of then King Frederik of Denmark, marries the future second son of then Queen Victoria of Sweden. So Isabella would become a Swedish princess and lose her place in succession to the Danish throne? Would it be possible to "merge" and make them Prince and Princess of Sweden and Denmark? I imagine it should be pretty tough for the one giving up their nationality, especially because they grew up to represent their country! Would anyone know when the last marriage between two ruling families took place?
I know that Queen Anne-Marie lost her place in the Danish line, but she married a king, that's why I'm deliberately asking about the younger children of rulers!

It doesn't always happen. British royals who have married into foreign royal families keep their place, which is why so many European royal families also have a distant place in the line for the British throne. However, it's impossible to renounce it (only Parliament can alter succession laws), so even if a British princess wanted to lose her place, she couldn't. It's quite possibly easier in other countries.

To respond to Bibliophilia's question, there is not a general rule on the matter, as far as I know. Some monarchies don't allow personal unions between two thrones (Christian of Denmark could not marry Ingrid of Norway, unless one of them renounces to his rights to the Throne), but this regards only Kings and Queens; so I don't think that a marriage between Prince and a Princess who are not both heirs presumptive may be a problem.

I didn't know if there was a general thread about this, applying to all Royal Families.

Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the first-born to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings.

There are 6 types.

1. Absolute, equal or lineal primogeniture, known in French as aînesse intégrale (integral primogeniture), is inheritance by the oldest surviving child without regard to gender. It is also known as (full) cognatic primogeniture today. This form of primogeniture was not practiced by any modern monarchy before 1980.

This applies to Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway.

2. "Agnatic primogeniture" or "patrilineal primogeniture" is inheritance according to seniority of birth among the sons of a monarch or head of family, with sons and their male issue inheriting before brothers and their issue, and male-line males inheriting before females of the male line.

3. "Agnatic-cognatic primogeniture" allows female agnates (or their descendants) to inherit once there are no surviving male agnates.

4. "Male preference primogeniture" (also known as "mixed-female succession" and as "cognatic" primogeniture) allows a female to succeed if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants.

This applies to Monaco, Spain and UK.

5. "Matrilineal primogeniture" is a form of succession where the eldest female child inherits the throne to the total exclusion of males.

6. "Uterine (or Ovarian) primogeniture" A right of succession may also be inherited by a male through a female ancestor or spouse, to the exclusion of any female heir who might be older or of nearer proximity of blood.

Well, for one, Japan should not practice the same kind of primogeniture that's practiced by Sweden. For around 2000 years, the right to sit on the Chrysanthemum Throne passed through males only. Women reigned as emperors (i.e. empresses regnant) but were never succeeded by their own children (unless those children were fathered by a male-line descendant of the imperial family). Thus, I believe that the 2000-year-long line of emperors who share the same patrilineal descent should not be broken. Perhaps it would be best to allow Aiko to succeed on condition that Hisahito and his descendants succeed her. Similar scenarios have taken place in the Japanese past.

There are more royal families which take their patrilineal descent seriously. The Jordanian Royal family, for example, is quite proud of being descended from the last Prophet's daughter through an unbroken male line (and thus also being the Prophet's agnates). The Jordanian monarchy has no firmly established tradition as Japan does, so I would not mind seeing a queen regnant after King Hussein II - but I don't see this coming.

I am absolutely opposed to passing an Act of Parliament that would enable British peerage titles to descend according to absolute cognatic primogeniture. It would be unfair towards all the females who have been skipped in favour of their male relatives. Creating some new titles with remainder to heirs regardless of gender - OK, but introducing a change that would lead to Beatrice, 2nd Duchess of York instead of Prince Henry, Duke of York is undesirable (IMO).

I am absolutely opposed to passing an Act of Parliament that would enable British peerage titles to descend according to absolute cognatic primogeniture. It would be unfair towards all the females who have been skipped in favour of their male relatives. Creating some new titles with remainder to heirs regardless of gender - OK, but introducing a change that would lead to Beatrice, 2nd Duchess of York instead of Prince Henry, Duke of York is undesirable (IMO).

I am not necessarily opposed to an Act of Parliament granting absolute cognatic primogeniture.. but the peerage laws are in place to keep a title or dignity within the same family.

It wouldn't be a bad idea, IMO, to modify the laws to allow a woman to succeed if she has no surviving brothers.. as was the case with Henrietta Churchill Godolphin - with an Act of Parliament in 1706 allowing her to succeed her father to the Dukedom of Marlborough. Unfortunately, her son and heir died without issue 3 years before she did.

But whatever is decided or passed, and given the longevity of the Queen's family thus far, I doubt Prince Harry will ever get the opportunity to be Duke of York. And I doubt Princess Beatrice will be her father's successor in that title either, as it is traditionally given to the monarch's "spare".

On the other hand, allowing Beatrice to become Duchess of York might not be a bad thing.. maybe it would break the bad luck of that particular title.

__________________Ú i vethed...nâ i onnad. Minlû pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")

What do you mean by bad luck regarding the York title? The last 2 Dukes went on to become the monarch. Maybe bad luck for their elder brothers but rather good fortune (literally) for the dukes.

Possibly due to the fact that with the exception of the first creation of a royal Duke of York (four Dukes, one of them from uncle to nephew), no Duke of York since have passed his title to a son, they have either become kings, not married or died young. Duke of York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think somebody has probably mentioned it on here before but, as of today, the commonwealth monarchy now has equal succession for both genders, this has been approved in all 16 countries with the monarch as their head of state.

I think somebody has probably mentioned it on here before but, as of today, the commonwealth monarchy now has equal succession for both genders, this has been approved in all 16 countries with the monarch as their head of state.

Well they have approved the idea but it will still have to pass through the various national parliaments including Westminster. Nothing is law yet.

With the birth of Crown Princess's Victoria's baby girl, there is one more female heir to the throne.So, if we put the current reigning royal houses, the female primogeniture generally wins.Here I mean the future royals (as the equal law hasn't been adopted many years ago).But I wish to clarify some questions.
So, I believe all non-European reigning houses don't accept the female heirs. In this way, if I'm not mistaken , there are 10 European reigning monarchies, most of which have female heirs( and mainly equal primogeniture).
1.Britain ( we'll have to wait for the baby of Cambridges, but the equal law seems to be adopted);
2.Belgium ( female heir);
3.Denmark (male heir);
4.Holland (female heir);
5.Norway (female heir);
6.Sweden (female heir);
7.Spain ( I think Leonor will remain heir unless Letizia gives birth to a boy);
8.Monaco ( we'll have to wait);
9.Luxembourg ( we'll have to wait);
10.Liechtenstein ( here I have little knowledge).
In case of European houses I don't know the precise situation with Britain, Monaco and Lichtenstein. Has there been discussed or adopted the equal law?

Did`nt the late Prince Rainier change the Monegasque constitution to allow female succession? I`m sure this was done, sometime at the turn of the century, when Prince Albert was still unmarried. Had he died without heirs, the Principality would have revereted to the French republic, hence the change in the constitution to allow the throne to pass to Princess Caroline and her children.

Did`nt the late Prince Rainier change the Monegasque constitution to allow female succession? I`m sure this was done, sometime at the turn of the century, when Prince Albert was still unmarried. Had he died without heirs, the Principality would have revereted to the French republic, hence the change in the constitution to allow the throne to pass to Princess Caroline and her children.

Yes but Man outrank female so for it's male preference primogeniture

__________________

__________________je suis Charlie

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire